I'm not knowledgeable about IRs other than many of them (from what I'm aware of) have "no guns" regs except for if you are driving through on the Interstate, or (as an example) getting gas in states that are RKBA friendly, and even then, like in AZ or OR, you must never go into a casino, or "into the reservation" as far as I know. Maybe I'm wrong about getting off the interstate.

So what could McDonald, providing a favorable outcome, do for the future of RKBA on the IRs? After the priority cases are over with and settled, do we find a way to further RKBA rights on IRs, especially casinos, or is this something that we can do absolutely nothing about?

Erik.

wilit

03-15-2010, 8:34 PM

I'm pretty sure McDonald wouldn't have any affect on IR's because they're considered federal land. Heller would apply to them. McDonald is about 14th incorporation against the States (which have little authority over IRs).

BKinzey

03-15-2010, 8:47 PM

...IR's because they're considered federal land...

Well, that's how the feds usually act.:rolleyes: The Indians, on the other hand, like to point out the "sovereign nation" phrases and clauses in the treaties:cool:.

Window_Seat

03-15-2010, 10:22 PM

Even though they're considered Federal land, since the Heller court gave its limits, I figured that McDonald would take it further, since IRs are within State boundaries, but let me further my question by asking that since carry is now legal in NPs, why not IRs?

Erik; can't give up yet.

bulgron

03-15-2010, 10:40 PM

I've always been taught that IRs are sovereign nations and so my guns are a no-no there. On the other hand, given that many of them derive the vast bulk of their income from federal aid, I'm not sure just how sovereign they can be anymore.

Glock-matic

03-16-2010, 7:04 PM

IR's are not subject to federal or state rule, they are allowed to make and enforce their own laws. Not even the US Army can take arms into an IR without permission.

dustoff31

03-16-2010, 7:24 PM

I've always been taught that IRs are sovereign nations and so my guns are a no-no there. On the other hand, given that many of them derive the vast bulk of their income from federal aid, I'm not sure just how sovereign they can be anymore.

As Glock-matic said, most IR have their own tribal law and their own police departments. But there are some limits to their power, for example, IIRC, any capital offense must be taken to US court. I not exactly sure about that.

Anyway, as it pertains to guns on the res, each has their own rules. Here in AZ, some tribes allow them and even honor an AZ CCW, some don't.

wilit

03-16-2010, 7:49 PM

Mmmm... They're kinda sovereign.

http://www.answers.com/topic/native-american-rights

Although Native Americans have been held to have both inherent rights and rights guaranteed, either explicitly or implicitly, by treaties with the federal government, the government retains the ultimate power and authority to either abrogate or protect Native American rights. This power stems from several legal sources. One is the power the Constitution gives to Congress to make regulations governing the territory belonging to the United States (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2), and another is the president's constitutional power to make treaties (Art. II, Sec. 2, Cl. 2). A more commonly cited source of federal power over Native American affairs is the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that "Congress shall have the Power … to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3). This clause has resulted in what is known as Congress's "plenary power" over Indian affairs, which means that Congress has the ultimate right to pass legislation governing Native Americans, even when that legislation conflicts with or abrogates Indian treaties. The most well-known case supporting this congressional right is Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 23 S. Ct. 216, 47 L. Ed. 299 (1903), in which Congress broke a treaty provision guaranteeing that no more cessions of land would be made without the consent of three-fourths of the adult males from the Kiowa and Comanche tribes. In justifying this abrogation, Justice Edward D. White declared that when "treaties were entered into between the United States and a tribe of Indians it was never doubted that the power to abrogate existed in Congress, and that in a contingency such power might be availed of from considerations of governmental policy."

yellowfin

03-16-2010, 8:25 PM

I've heard stories of them being NFA free fun zones. Of course the other side of the coin is they also have higher incidence of alcoholism and depression, according to my many psychologist friends.

GaryV

03-16-2010, 8:39 PM

Mmmm... They're kinda sovereign.

http://www.answers.com/topic/native-american-rights

In other words, their as sovereign as congress says at any given moment, which can vary all the way to not at all.